PHILADELPHIA | THE LAUREL @ 1911 Walnut | 604 FT | 48 FLOORS

[1487]

Originally Posted by Zoot

False. Architects might do the design work in the literal sense, but the client dictates the project starting with the mere selection of the architect. Developers rarely give architects free reign in design. I stand by Justin's comments. Looking at a portfolio certainly does give a sense of the quality of product that a developer is willing to pay for (architectural style, materials, etc.). Obviously things can change and SLC has clearly shown that they are willing to pursue something beyond their bread and butter. However, the proposed design is not quite up to the level worthy of such a premier site. The height doesn't bother me. It's encouraged. However, the demolition of historic properties for a poorly articulated bland tower with generic streetscape DOES bother me.

I am hopeful that my fellow neighbors will help improve this project through the stakeholders group. If not, I am fine with the property sitting vacant until a deserving project is proposed. The property has traded for significant funds which will ensure that something gets built when the timing is right.

And to the earlier comment that such views are "short sighted" - The same can be said about those who are so quick to support a project that demolishes our history and replaces it with a generic design barely worthy of Market Street. Those pesky height boners...

What a developer will pay for it dependent on the specifics of the building and the market. Someone building a luxury hi rise in an area where units might sell for $500k+ has a different budget than someone developing low income housing using tax credit financing schemes or someone designing for a nonprofit. So unless someone can show that SLC has provided a low quality building in an area with the same characteristics, zoning classification and price range of rittenhouse square the comparisons are pointless. Architects and developers can and will create totally different looking structures in different markets. On top of that what has been generated so far hardly looks cheap or half assed so I'm not why why the accusations are being leveled at this point.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by 1487

What a developer will pay for it dependent on the specifics of the building and the market. Someone building a luxury hi rise in an area where units might sell for $500k+ has a different budget than someone developing low income housing using tax credit financing schemes or someone designing for a nonprofit. So unless someone can show that SLC has provided a low quality building in an area with the same characteristics, zoning classification and price range of rittenhouse square the comparisons are pointless. Architects and developers can and will create totally different looking structures in different markets. On top of that what has been generated so far hardly looks cheap or half assed so I'm not why why the accusations are being leveled at this point.

For the record my statement did not say that the building looks cheap or half assed. SLC most certainly has proposed something different and higher quality than their past projects.

[39.95n]

Without getting into the merits of the proposal, I think SLC will be doing very well if they manage to get a shovel in the ground before the end of the year. This is a complex site in a much loved and wealthy area of the city, one that contains historically protected buildings. I don't really remember how long it took 10 Rittenhouse to get through the process, but to the best of my recollection it was measured in years, not months. My only hope is that SLC sees the merits of striking a sensible compromise rather than trying to shove demolition down the communities' throat. I would point them in the direction of Dilworth House if they would like a good cautionary tale...

On another note here is a bit of coverage of Dustin Downey discussing development in Philly:

http://omegacre.blogspot.com/2016/02...ltifamily.html

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by 39.95n

I don't really remember how long it took 10 Rittenhouse to get through the process, but to the best of my recollection it was measured in years, not months.

And lives. Hal Wheeler died of heart failure before the project was finished, in the midst of a financial collapse. Poor guy.

[boxbot]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

And lives. Hal Wheeler died of heart failure before the project was finished, in the midst of a financial collapse. Poor guy.

They never should have showed him the bill for the Christmas tree they hoisted up during the construction.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by boxbot

They never should have showed him the bill for the Christmas tree they hoisted up during the construction.

Actually, I think he ate one too many Baconators with 1487.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

And lives. Hal Wheeler died of heart failure before the project was finished, in the midst of a financial collapse. Poor guy.

My recollection is that he died not long after proposing projects at the Boyd and 5th & Vine sites. Around 2009 or 2010?

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

My recollection is that he died not long after proposing projects at the Boyd and 5th & Vine sites. Around 2009 or 2010?

Here's the whole story:
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelp...en-dreams.html

[Justin7]

Apologies for the long post. Please skip over it if you're tired of my opposition to this project.

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

Yes, bulldozing historically designated properties without more thought was pretty lame, but it seems that is now under discussion thanks to the CCRA committee. You can make points without going "ad hominem" on SLC.

Yes, thanks to the CCRA. This is like saying, "Yeah, attempting to rob the bank wasn't the best plan, but thanks to the police things are under control, so let's give the bank robbers the benefit of the doubt."

In what way was anything I wrote an ad hominem attack?

Originally Posted by 1487

architects design buildings, not developers. The fact that their other buildings in other cities with a totally different context arent up to Rittenhouse standards doesn't prove they can't commission a nice building for this location.

Originally Posted by Zoot

False. Architects might do the design work in the literal sense, but the client dictates the project starting with the mere selection of the architect. Developers rarely give architects free reign in design. I stand by Justin's comments. Looking at a portfolio certainly does give a sense of the quality of product that a developer is willing to pay for (architectural style, materials, etc.). Obviously things can change and SLC has clearly shown that they are willing to pursue something beyond their bread and butter. However, the proposed design is not quite up to the level worthy of such a premier site. The height doesn't bother me. It's encouraged. However, the demolition of historic properties for a poorly articulated bland tower with generic streetscape DOES bother me.

I am hopeful that my fellow neighbors will help improve this project through the stakeholders group. If not, I am fine with the property sitting vacant until a deserving project is proposed. The property has traded for significant funds which will ensure that something gets built when the timing is right.

And to the earlier comment that such views are "short sighted" - The same can be said about those who are so quick to support a project that demolishes our history and replaces it with a generic design barely worthy of Market Street. Those pesky height boners...

Thank you. Was about to type out a response but couldn't have said it better.

I would add that looking at their previous Philadelphia attempt is the best example. Compare the rendering to the final product. (Would people consider it off-topic to post comparison pictures here?) Don't assume that solid renderings guarantee a quality building.

Originally Posted by jjv007

Look no further for the people holding back Philadelphia development lol. ^^

Originally Posted by boxbot

Horsepucky. It's a false dichotomy. It's not a black and white thing where you can only have development or preservation. A well thought out plan can and should do both. I don't know who SLC is meeting with behind the scenes or what kind of pushback they're getting, but if they want to build this tower they will be able to build this tower. Some of us would like to preserve some existing structures as part of that plan.

Thank you. It's tiresome to hear that opposition to any single building is holding the city back. I support the vast majority of large projects taking place in the city, but not every project is a good one. A lot of people laughed when I made the Dallas comparison, but approving every mess that comes along is a large part of what makes these southern cities so bad. Be a little more selective. Have some pride.

Originally Posted by 39.95n

This is a complex site in a much loved and wealthy area of the city, one that contains historically protected buildings.

That is kind of the point though, isn't it? This is only a complex site because SLC made it a complex site. They could have simply built on the Walnut lot. Instead the want to demolish historic buildings and span a street to cover a separate lot. None of this is necessary. Not only that, but this is all just to add a driveway and a lowrise portion. Does anyone here actually think that would be better for the city than two separate towers on two distinct lots? Someone please make that argument.

The obvious thing for the city to do is to have SLC restore the historic buildings in exchange for allowing whatever height they want on Walnut. I would also encourage them to take a walk down the street and have a look at The Beacon for an example of the right way to handle historic buildings.

[Londonee]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Apologies for the long post. Please skip over it if you're tired of my opposition to this project.
f

I live in Fitler Square, so I guess as a card carrying CCRA member I have some say in this too?

The problem with local community opposition is that their requests are inherently selfish - and almost by definition not in the best interest of the city at large. Generally speaking, community opposition groups push back b/c of Parking, Height, or Density - and probably in that order. Those aren't noble, urban-design fights. Those are selfish, very local concerns - will my parking rates go up; will my southern view get dinged a bit; will my starbucks line get even LONGER in the AM!!??

And their "urban" concerns are often a wolf in sheep skin - "that building is just out of CHARACTER for our colonial neighborhood" - which is code for: it's too tall, too dense, and where will they park...

Aside from the driveway on Walnut Street and the preservation concerns - what are the truly objectionable, urban-based concerns with the project? If there are 100 moving parts in this project, sounds like you are objecting to, like, 10 of them.

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I live in Fitler Square, so I guess as a card carrying CCRA member I have some say in this too?

The problem with local community opposition is that their requests are inherently selfish - and almost by definition not in the best interest of the city at large. Generally speaking, community opposition groups push back b/c of Parking, Height, or Density - and probably in that order. Those aren't noble, urban-design fights. Those are selfish, very local concerns - will my parking rates go up; will my southern view get dinged a bit; will my starbucks line get even LONGER in the AM!!??

And their "urban" concerns are often a wolf in sheep skin - "that building is just out of CHARACTER for our colonial neighborhood" - which is code for: it's too tall, too dense, and where will they park...

Aside from the driveway on Walnut Street and the preservation concerns - what are the truly objectionable, urban-based concerns with the project? If there are 100 moving parts in this project, sounds like you are objecting to, like, 10 of them.

Well said!

[jjv007]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I live in Fitler Square, so I guess as a card carrying CCRA member I have some say in this too?

The problem with local community opposition is that their requests are inherently selfish - and almost by definition not in the best interest of the city at large. Generally speaking, community opposition groups push back b/c of Parking, Height, or Density - and probably in that order. Those aren't noble, urban-design fights. Those are selfish, very local concerns - will my parking rates go up; will my southern view get dinged a bit; will my starbucks line get even LONGER in the AM!!??

And their "urban" concerns are often a wolf in sheep skin - "that building is just out of CHARACTER for our colonial neighborhood" - which is code for: it's too tall, too dense, and where will they park...

Aside from the driveway on Walnut Street and the preservation concerns - what are the truly objectionable, urban-based concerns with the project? If there are 100 moving parts in this project, sounds like you are objecting to, like, 10 of them.

Exactly, well put!

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I live in Fitler Square, so I guess as a card carrying CCRA member I have some say in this too?

The problem with local community opposition is that their requests are inherently selfish - and almost by definition not in the best interest of the city at large. Generally speaking, community opposition groups push back b/c of Parking, Height, or Density - and probably in that order. Those aren't noble, urban-design fights. Those are selfish, very local concerns - will my parking rates go up; will my southern view get dinged a bit; will my starbucks line get even LONGER in the AM!!??

And their "urban" concerns are often a wolf in sheep skin - "that building is just out of CHARACTER for our colonial neighborhood" - which is code for: it's too tall, too dense, and where will they park...

Aside from the driveway on Walnut Street and the preservation concerns - what are the truly objectionable, urban-based concerns with the project? If there are 100 moving parts in this project, sounds like you are objecting to, like, 10 of them.

Excellent! Especially the sentence I highlighted in bold. When a builder is asked to reduce height and/or density, the "community" is also asking the entire city to leave money on the table with RE transfer taxes, property taxes (post abatement), and potentially wage taxes, too. Local businesses are also losing potential customers. And it's sad to see a city that is reduced to taxing sodas because there is nothing left to tax, allow the community to have such power. Just once I would like to see the city or a developer reply to NIMBYs with something like, "each unit will contribute $XXX to the city annually and by reducing the height by XX feet, X units would be eliminated and the city stands to lose $XXX."

If that's not selfish, I don't know what is.

[1487]

Hopefully some updates on this project are coming soon. I do wonder what is going on behind the scenes.

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by McBane

Excellent! Especially the sentence I highlighted in bold. When a builder is asked to reduce height and/or density, the "community" is also asking the entire city to leave money on the table with RE transfer taxes, property taxes (post abatement), and potentially wage taxes, too. Local businesses are also losing potential customers. And it's sad to see a city that is reduced to taxing sodas because there is nothing left to tax, allow the community to have such power. Just once I would like to see the city or a developer reply to NIMBYs with something like, "each unit will contribute $XXX to the city annually and by reducing the height by XX feet, X units would be eliminated and the city stands to lose $XXX."

If that's not selfish, I don't know what is.

To take it a step further...

Is your community group willing to make up the difference to the potential loses?

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by Londonee

I live in Fitler Square, so I guess as a card carrying CCRA member I have some say in this too?

The problem with local community opposition is that their requests are inherently selfish - and almost by definition not in the best interest of the city at large. Generally speaking, community opposition groups push back b/c of Parking, Height, or Density - and probably in that order. Those aren't noble, urban-design fights. Those are selfish, very local concerns - will my parking rates go up; will my southern view get dinged a bit; will my starbucks line get even LONGER in the AM!!??

And their "urban" concerns are often a wolf in sheep skin - "that building is just out of CHARACTER for our colonial neighborhood" - which is code for: it's too tall, too dense, and where will they park...

Aside from the driveway on Walnut Street and the preservation concerns - what are the truly objectionable, urban-based concerns with the project? If there are 100 moving parts in this project, sounds like you are objecting to, like, 10 of them.

First, I generally agree with your view of community groups, but I am not sure how it's relevant. I strongly support height and density.

I think I've made my reasons for opposition to this project clear, but I will restate that

a) First and foremost I don't think historically designated buildings should be demolished. This is obviously not a hardship case and treating it as one would be a mistake. The city would be poorer if it let SLC destroy these buildings.

b) Under an circumstances, but for a driveway? That is an urban disaster better suited for, yup, Dallas. Massive curb cuts are not good urban design.

c) Lowrise development on Sansom. This is a separate lot also well suited for a high density building. That's not what we're getting.

d) Spanning Moravian St. There may be circumstances where allowing to a private company to essentially take control and build over a city street, but this isn't one of them.

e) SLC's track record. Again, compare the 3601 Market renderings to the actual building. Then look at the rest of their projects that are built in open fields somewhere.

Your last sentence is an obvious straw man setup. Actually, your entire post is nothing but. A project could have a thousand moving parts, 999 great and 1 terrible and still be an awful development.

Despite all of my objections, there are two private lots here that SLC controls (not including the protected buildings) and they have ever right to build on them. I certainly would not make an argument to the contrary. What they do not have a right to do is tear down protected buildings and take over a city street.

So again: Give up trying to demolish protected buildings, give up trying to connect to two lots spanning a city street. Build the tower on Walnut as the plan calls for an trash the rest. This would be a win for Philadelphia. SLC would still make a ton of money. Everyone wins.

[BenKatzPhillytoParis]

Originally Posted by Justin7

First, I generally agree with your view of community groups, but I am not sure how it's relevant. I strongly support height and density.

I think I've made my reasons for opposition to this project clear, but I will restate that

a) First and foremost I don't think historically designated buildings should be demolished. This is obviously not a hardship case and treating it as one would be a mistake. The city would be poorer if it let SLC destroy these buildings.

b) Under an circumstances, but for a driveway? That is an urban disaster better suited for, yup, Dallas. Massive curb cuts are not good urban design.

c) Lowrise development on Sansom. This is a separate lot also well suited for a high density building. That's not what we're getting.

d) Spanning Moravian St. There may be circumstances where allowing to a private company to essentially take control and build over a city street, but this isn't one of them.

e) SLC's track record. Again, compare the 3601 Market renderings to the actual building. Then look at the rest of their projects that are built in open fields somewhere.

Your last sentence is an obvious straw man setup. Actually, your entire post is nothing but. A project could have a thousand moving parts, 999 great and 1 terrible and still be an awful development.

Despite all of my objections, there are two private lots here that SLC controls (not including the protected buildings) and they have ever right to build on them. I certainly would not make an argument to the contrary. What they do not have a right to do is tear down protected buildings and take over a city street.

So again: Give up trying to demolish protected buildings, give up trying to connect to two lots spanning a city street. Build the tower on Walnut as the plan calls for an trash the rest. This would be a win for Philadelphia. SLC would still make a ton of money. Everyone wins.

Thank you. It's that simple.

[RonnieStevens]

So say they do build on a lot that is only facing Walnut, a slender tower that will probably have less architectural features as the size will cut into profits. You have to build up now to make up for the lost units but no one is going to approve the height increase. We then have a parking lot on Sansom and 3 abandoned historically protected building along that street. Maybe years from now there will be a proposal for another condo tower or maybe some luxury row homes like walnut estates. As we have heard from the developer, only the Rittenhouse coffee shop can be more or less reused without full on rehab. So aren't we going to get stuck with the funeral home and the Warwick till they fall down on to the street from another 20 years of neglect? If financial models show that saving and rehabing those 2 building doesn't make sense in the context of this larger project, how will it make sense in a smaller project with thinner margins and risk tolerance that would be build on the remaining lot along Samson?

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Spanning Moravian St. There may be circumstances where allowing to a private company to essentially take control and build over a city street, but this isn't one of them . . . What they do not have a right to do is . . . . take over a city street.

So again: . . . . give up trying to connect to two lots spanning a city street

That's a new one.

I agree with many of your points. But preserving a dark dank 18th c. dumpster alley never used by pedestrians is definitely not one of them.

This is a cynical new argument, beyond the more understandable historic preservation issue, concocted to throw one more wrench in the works to gain additional negotiating leverage.

It's just a tactic, not an urban design principal, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The idea that perhaps they could make the project less of a superblock and break it into smaller pieces at street level, I agree that is preferable from an urban design perspective, but it is not something that should be imposed on a developer on a spot basis at this late stage in the game; if that's the kind of development we want in this neighborhood it should have already been codified in the zoning.

So please spare us the "take over a city street" stuff: should that requirement ever actually be imposed on the developer you'd likely end up with a pitch black, walled in unused dead-end back alley that just wastes space. As it does now.

Stick with the historic preservation argument, but please drop the back alley closure injustice thing. It's just a stupid argument.

[Cro Burnham]

Originally Posted by RonnieStevens

So say they do build on a lot that is only facing Walnut, a slender tower that will probably have less architectural features as the size will cut into profits. You have to build up now to make up for the lost units but no one is going to approve the height increase. We then have a parking lot on Sansom and 3 abandoned historically protected building along that street. Maybe years from now there will be a proposal for another condo tower or maybe some luxury row homes like walnut estates. As we have heard from the developer, only the Rittenhouse coffee shop can be more or less reused without full on rehab. So aren't we going to get stuck with the funeral home and the Warwick till they fall down on to the street from another 20 years of neglect? If financial models show that saving and rehabing those 2 building doesn't make sense in the context of this larger project, how will it make sense in a smaller project with thinner margins and risk tolerance that would be build on the remaining lot along Samson?

Excellent point.